IGNORANCE of the law — pretended or otherwise — is no defence. Let us look at one case which illustrates thousands of cases which have cropped up in the courts concerning Karachi’s building and development jungle — that old familiar nightmare.

An explanatory introduction : A builder/developer gets hold of a plot of land in a purely residential area. He is fully aware that the high-rise he intends constructing, residential and/or commercial, is illegal, unlawful and likely to be challenged in a court of law by the residents of the area who have all purchased their plots under guarantees given by the authorities that the neighbouring plots will be used purely for residential purposes with restrictions on building heights, open spaces, and so forth.

The builder/developer could not care less. He will sell the building’s flats and shops before even a brick is laid to those seeking to make what they see as a good investment and who intend to sublet or to those seeking shelter.

When the affected residents of the neighbourhood get together and go to court, even if miraculously the case goes in their favour, the builder/developer knows that he can tell a pack of lies, get away with it, and go into appeal after appeal, thus prolonging the matter while raking in money.

Meanwhile, those who have paid for their unbuilt or half-built flats and shops are stuck. They cannot get their money back, for what they have done is wrong and against the law. They should have known, or they did know. There is no legal leg on which to stand unless an occupant, before purchasing and occupying brand new premises, has ascertained that the builder has obtained an NOC from the concerned authorities plus an occupancy certificate. The builder/developer is fine. He has put in no money. He has used that of his unwitting or witting buyers. The plot of land on which the building is to be built is worth far more than what will be built on it, and he can always find a buyer — court or no court.

Now to the specific case : We go back two years. In 2004, residents of Garden East filed in the Sindh High Court a suit for declaration and injunction against the builder/lessee of Plot No.GRE-289 (1,522 sq yds), Garden East, Karachi. The allegation was that in this purely residential area where there were restrictions on the height and type of buildings allowed to be constructed, the builder was constructing multistoried flats in violation of the law and prayed that he be restrained from doing so.

By its order of 25/5/2004, the court restrained the builder from raising any construction in violation of the building rules and from creating third- party rights in the property. As is usual, the court order was violated, and by a further order of 29/11/2005 the Nazim of the court was directed to attach those flats supposedly lying vacant, and the builder was directed to provide a list of the sitting occupants. This forced the builder into voluntarily agreeing to have the flats occupied by his ‘accomplices’ vacated, which he did without much ado (no wailing about widows and children) and a compliance report was handed to the court on 22/12/2005.

Nevertheless, again in usual fashion, the builder went ahead and executed leases in respect of various flats and the same (more or less) occupants moved in. This was brought to the notice of the court and on 27/3/2006 an order was passed directing the Nazim to dispossess the occupants, with police assistance if required. The dispossessed and the builder appealed.

Now, to quote from the order dated April 4, 2006, handed down in High Court Appeal No.106/2006 by Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed sitting with Justice Qaisar Iqbal.

“Mr Khalid Jawed Khan, learned counsel for the appellants, being conscious that a sale in defiance of an order of attachment is to be treated as void, proceeded to urge with a great deal of emphasis that the appellants were neither privy to the litigation amongst the appellants, nor were they aware of such litigation. As such, they were innocent bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and required the protection of law........

“Ms Sana Minhas, learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 8 [residents of the area] however urged that most of the appellants were shown to be in occupation of different flats in the building in the Nazim’s report dated 21/6/2005...... Therefore the contention that they purchased the property in the year 2006 and were never aware of prior litigation is factually incorrect. Learned counsel further argued that notwithstanding the factual controversy it was not disputed that the appellants had proceeded to occupy the flats in their possession without issuance of any occupancy certificate.... and as such, their occupancy was ex-facie illegal.......

“In the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court [2000 SCMR 1748] it has been expressly laid down that the occupant of a building acquires no better right and interest than the builder and is not entitled to notice when an unlawfully constructed building is sought to be demolished. In [1998 CLC 1952 and 2001 MLD 1635 and 2003 CLC 245].... it was categorically held that occupation of a building without an occupancy certificate was patently unlawful and such occupation would not be protected.

“Indeed, Mr Khalid Jawed Khan attempted to distinguish the above cited judgments by contending that in the instant case the question was not whether the building had been constructed in violation of the approved plan or the applicable law. This was contested by Ms Sana Minhas but without going into this controversy, we would simply observe that once the appellant had taken the stance of being a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration to claim exemption from the ordinary operation of law for him to establish that he had taken all reasonable care to ensure that there was no clog on his right to possess and occupy the building.

“In the circumstances we are, prima facie, of the view that the appellants are not entitled to any protection and would therefore dismiss this appeal. However, the appellants are granted four weeks time to vacate the premises failing which the Nazir will cause their dispossession, if necessary after taking police assistance, without any further notice. The learned Single Judge may also decide the suit preferably within six months.”

The people have their backs to the wall and can only but rely on our judges who know and respect the laws of the land without fear or favour. They have no other recourse to justice. The administration, political and civil, have since long succumbed to corruption.